I'm just not understanding why "big government establishment Republicans" would have any problem with Mitt. He's the perfect guy for them, with the rhetoric to stir up the Tea Party vote to get elected, but in the end, he's one of them.

Whether there is or isn't a Rep 'establishment,' it's quite clear that there is panic in the ranks at the thought of Newt (and to a lesser degree Mitt) being the Rep nominee. Even before Newt was effectively booted out as Speaker by his own troops, his favorable/unfavorable ratings with the voting public have been radioactively negative. Nothjing is going to change that 20-year old reality. Mitt's are creeping up as well, although they're not (probably never will be) at the astronomical level of Newt's.

The yearning for someone else to get in the race and rescue the home team from this nightmare -- Mitch, Jeb, Chris would do fine. But that remains just a fantasy, and you have to take the field with the players willing to do so. So pick: Mitt, Newt, Rick or Dr. Paulie.

From that list it's not hard (and it's not Newt), assuming the objective is to win. All the talk about the 'establishment' is just a way of saying that many, many people having an ardent desire to win in '12 are coming to the same conclusion and recognize the need to do something about it. Let's just hope that Mitt was watching Mitch a few days ago and learned something about how to run for president from the exercise.

This Slander-o-matic flood of mud over old Newt's 1980-1990s history is silly.

If Ray Lewis and a healthy Peyton Manning are now available, a team that wants to win is silly to refuse them because Lewis is old now and played for the Ravens once and Manning is old now and played for the Colts once.

No. you sign them up and go win the Super Bowl that is coming next year, ready or not.

On the masthead issue, King still got his ass whipped and that doesn't change.

As for the Reagan question, the ABR crowd was so desperate for anyone, they settled on someone they had already eliminated as viable in their eyes, and now they're being hoist on their own objections, whether by the RINOs or the real Conservatives (i.e., the ones who understand it's not ABR, it's ABO).

shiloh said...

Shocking that a conservative Rep er moderate Rep like Newt er RINO like mittens would lie!

Newt was more likely mistaken.

Shiloh lies.

Richard Dolan said...

The yearning for someone else to get in the race and rescue the home team from this nightmare -- Mitch, Jeb, Chris would do fine.

My God, what nonsense.

Christie is a 1 year governor, Daniels hasn't got the stomach for a fight, and nobody really wants Jeb.

Whether Dolan appreciates that and is on the other side, or just thinks one RINO is as good as another, is something else

Third parties make no sense because while the two parties have put up great walls to protect themselves from third party assaults, they are defenseless against internal assaults. So it makes much more sense for tea partiers or libertarians to take over the structure of the Republican party and make the Republican party the Tea party party or the libertarian party in all but name than it is to create an actual successful Tea Party Party or Libertarian Party. And both are actually happening. The Republican party is now much more libertarian and serious about the Constitution (the main tea party concern) than it was, say, 10 years ago. Neither movement has enough sway yet to pick the presidential candidate, but they are making great strides.

paul - you may be correct about Abrams. But Gingrich is wildly undisciplined, and would get his clock cleaned in the general election. Gingrich has shown, in this primary that he is all about Newt Gingrich. Violated Reagan's 11th commandment, and is doing President Obama's campaign work for him. He did the same thing early in the primary season by ripping on Paul Ryan's plan. Newt has shown over the years taht he will do what is good for him, anything else be damned. Frankly, he's like Bill Clinton, but not as likeable to the general population. He's about as faithful, though.

This RINO nonsense is stupid and destructive. Go ahead, you fools. Get your poster boy, Newt, his nomination. Enjoy four more years of Obama. If you can't see a difference between Obama and Romney on economic policy, it's because you're not looking.

So what if he's squishy on some of your precious social issues? All of a sudden, you're back to saying gay marriage is the greatest threat to America? I think Pat Robertson might still be available.

It is the height of absurdity for you guys to throw the RINO charge around on behalf of the candidate who called Paul Ryan's Medicare plan "right wing social engineering."

I'm an independent, not a Republican, but I was counting on the Republican party not to be the Stupid Party this year, because Obama is wrecking the economy. Continuing to advocate Gingrich given all that he has said and done to disqualify himself counts as the most tragically dumb political mistake of the new century. Romney might not give you guys the kind of boner you need, but he's more than adequate. If you wanted someone better, you should've pressed some of your absent favorites to get into the race while there was still time. You didn't do that, you failed, so don't blow it up out of spite, which is what this RINO-spew is, sheer spite.

Gingrich may "fight hard" against Obama, but he might be the one guy who can actually come off as being more dangerous for the country than Obama, even to many Republican voters. And even an sleazier politician.

Let's see - Gingrich has made a damn good living off the govt since 1978 yet I am supposed to think he is an outsider and worry about poor, little Newtie when the big bad so-called establishment opposes him?

If Newt was once a Washington insider, then what does he become after they threw him out...an outsider of course.

No, he became for all intents and purposes a lobbyist. Romney's term is correct: Influence peddler. He saw where the legal line was so that he wouldn't have to register as a lobbyist, and walked along that line, and profited handsomely.

Maybe he wants to cast himself as an outsider, but it is literally absurd -- especially in contrast to Romney, who has never had a Washington gig.

It's a stupid distinction anyway. Everyone in DC wants it both ways -- to don the insider hat when the money's being passed around, and the outsider hat when they're campaigning. Gingrich is depressingly typical.

Romney is wildly undisciplined, and would get his clock cleaned in the general election. Romney has shown, in this primary that he is all about Mitt Romney. Violated Reagan's 11th commandment, and is doing President Obama's campaign work for him.

And the follow up sounds like the difference between honestly asking...

"Okay, who would you like us to talk to?"

Opposed to dishonestly asking...

"Who was explicitly offered?"

Because, "We can provide people you can talk to..." being followed by no requests, no interest, is exactly what Gingrich said.

And what the journalist guy said was "the only specific people mentioned at the time were his two daughters" and then deciding that that was the same as "there was no one but his two daughters."

If someone *requested the list*, we still have no idea.

So who lied?

I'm betting it wasn't Gingrich.

Notice that the guy NEVER ASKED who those other people were. Never asked. He only researched what names were specifically provided. He didn't say "and today the only names the campaign will give us are his two daughters... no one else."

And the media is STILL obviously not at all interested in finding out the truth, if there are those who will attest to what Gingrich said was true.

"I propose that no one who is thinking about making the moon a state, or even about lunar colonization given the enormity of our deficit and debt should be seen as a serious candidate."

I would support that person, so long as the time frame wasn't presented as "next year."

But anyone who thinks we should just cede the Moon to whomever gets it first instead of laying a groundwork of intention and mind-map of how that ought to work is short sighted and defeatist.

Our space policy and treaties are moronic, dog-in-the-manger affairs written and agreed to while we held complete dominance. The US can be a mangy mutt barking at the cows, full of our own importance, while other nations go on without us, probably not even bothering to look back with pity.

Assuming John King's correct in the clip you embedded, Gingrich was certainly wrong when he insisted his campaign organization had offered corroborating witnesses to ABC News for interview.

But there's no breath of a hint of a scintilla of a showing that at the time Gingrich said that which has now been shown incorrect, he knew otherwise or intended to deceive.

You wouldn't survive a directed verdict on this in court. I know this is just your blog, and the same evidentiary and logical standards don't apply as a matter of rule or compulsion. And I'm certainly not here to insist upon Gingrich's absolute veracity on this or any other matter. He's a slippery fish.

But "totally lied"? You totally made that up.

WV: "emperker": The counterpart to a "fluffer" on porno sets, who carries a bowl of ice chips for the female performers.

As you can see, Willard is a regular guy. He hunts varmints, if you will. He tasted a beer once and even tried smoking a cigarette. Yeah, that's right... Willard had a wild side in his younger days, just like most American men.

Willard is the real deal. Americans recognize authenticity when they see it.

"Did Gingrich come out and say who else he had other than his daughters? If he hasn't can't it just be assumed there is no one else?"

The journalist guy *carefully* didn't ask.

He *carefully* only asked who was specifically offered up at a previous *specific* date.

It's in Gingrich's self-interest to offer.

It's the other fellow's professional *obligation* to ask.

If I, you, or anyone else, says "I have a list of references" that statement is not proof that I, you, or anyone else, is telling a fib. I do have a list of references. If you haven't requested it, am I lying about it?

I thought it was rather glaring that the question Gingrich claimed the media had no interest in answering was so carefully avoided.

Two questions were deliberately avoided in favor of pinning down specific wordage by his campaign. What is his character, #1. Who will vouch for his character, #2.

At no point whatsoever did he say, "NBC requested the names of the references so that they could be interviewed and the Gingrich campaign failed to provide them."

And no... I'd never list off a bunch of names in public, obligating myself to specifics. Even with people who were asked specifically and who specifically said, "I'd do that for you, Newt", you'd check again, give them a call... "NBC wants to talk to you Joe, do you want to do that?" Because people change their minds or stuff comes up or they're just not available.

How great would a news report be if the guy could say, "We took the Gingrich campaign up on it and followed up on every person and he had nothing, nothing at all."

Synova, what he said in the debate was clearly meant to imply that in addition to his daughters, he had friends queued up to speak to ABC, and ABC, quote, wasn't interested. That statement, it is now clear, was inaccurate. While we don't know the state of Gingrich's knowledge, on such a personal issue, it's difficult to believe he was simply misspeaking. They're supposed to have been his friends.

The thing about adding friends into the mix is they are once removed from the family, and while certainly biased, their biases can be checked. Plus, instinctually, you know that if the friend offered up was a mutual friend of Mariane's and Newt's, they would tend to be cautious about going against her unless there was a very good reason.

---

Meanwhile, here's a quote from Ann Coulter, not often associated with the GOP establishment:

"Romney is the most electable candidate not only because it will be nearly impossible for the media to demonize this self-made Mormon square, devoted to his wife and church, but precisely because he is the most conservative candidate.

Patrick:I propose that no one who is thinking about making the moon a state, or even about lunar colonization given the enormity of our deficit and debt should be seen as a serious candidate.

That's right. Let us get pulled down into the tar pit from self destruction in this country and never rise above to dream of new frontiers. Exactly what we need.

How about this. Let's think beyond our petty problems to what could be, have a goal, and do something everyone can dream about. Maybe people will stop figuring out how to divide up the wealth of this nation, and move forward with purpose.

"Synova, what he said in the debate was clearly meant to imply that in addition to his daughters, he had friends queued up to speak to ABC, and ABC, quote, wasn't interested. That statement, it is now clear, was inaccurate."

How?

Okay, so I'll go watch again, but it sure sounded to me like Gingrich implied he "had friends queued up to speck to ABC and ABC wasn't interested," and the "fact check" wasn't "was ABC interested and Gingrich failed to provide" but "did Gingrich's campaign specifically name those friends as part of that communication."

Why concentrate so hard on "I've got people who will vouch for me" part of his statement while not actually asking his campaign to *now* provide those names, and entirely ignore the "and ABC wasn't interested" part of that statement?

I don't have a preference, yet, between Gingrich or Romney. I'm going only by the clip posted of the media guy supposedly proving that he's not a tool.

If Gingrich's statement and assertions were lies, why are we not being told that ABC was, in fact, very interested and the Gingrich campaign did not deliver?

When someone is that careful about exactly how they prove they aren't a tool, my suspicions are aroused.

Several means "More than one," (though it can also mean "more than two). Presumably his daughters are friends. So even by the letter of what he said, he spoke the truth. He did not lie. What am I missing here?

Also, in the intent, it would seem to me his daughters would be much much closer than any outside friend to the truth. It was a question I had which was how would a friend know? Well, a friend might not, but someone in the day to day of the family might. So in substance, this is a BETTER answer.

Also... aren't charges that Gingrich insulted Saint Ronny a bit like slyly pointing out that Romney is a *gasp* Mormon or that *shudder* Cheney has a gay daughter?

All of those things are squarely reliant on the irrationality of the supposed audience.

Supposedly, by implication, people who like Reagan are simplistic folks who will bristle at the very implication that someone criticized him about something. Single minded and intolerant of any dissent, all of us.

I expect political opponents to make those implications. I expect *journalists* to sort through them and report fairly on how legitimate they are. Isn't that their job?

I'm not saying Gingrich couldn't possibly have been lying. I'm saying the video clip Prof. Althouse embeds doesn't establish that he was lying. It establishes -- if it's correct, and I don't have any particular reason to doubt that, at least, King got the admission he claims from someone at the campaign -- that Gingrich was wrong. That's all.

And I would be very surprised if, in the hurley-burley of a presidential campaign, Newt had not delegated to someone on his staff the task of rounding up and vetting the hoped-for corroborating witnesses, and then offering them up to ABC for interview. I'm willing to entertain an argument that Gingrich has been proved reckless in making positive representations about things he expected that his staff had indeed followed up on, which they turned out not to have (or not to have been able to). But, again, that's different that showing an intentional "lie," which is a term I think ought be used carefully.

And of course, anyone here, certainly including Prof. A, is entitled to jump to whatever opinion he or she wishes on the subject of whether Gingrich was merely wrong or was lying. Believe what you find believable, including things which you base on circumstantial evidence or reasonable inference. But unless more is added to this picture -- holy cow, I almost wrote "this record" (mea culpa) -- there's a hole in the wall of evidence one would need to assemble in order to make an evidence-based (non-speculative) accusation of lying.

NB: I'll support Gingrich if he's the GOP nominee, but rank him below both Romney and Santorum in my current preferences among those in the race (and below about a half dozen who I wish were in the race).

This also says nearly nothing about the truth or falsity of the "he wanted an open marriage" allegation.

There may have been people who would have provided the corroboration Gingrich wanted if they remembered the relevant events this many years later, but they've forgotten. Or they may have remembered impressions, but not any specific facts to back them up. Or they may remember specific facts, but have declined the request that they volunteer to present themselves for on-the-record interviews, perhaps on-camera interviews, with CNN. Or someone in the campaign could have simply dropped the ball and failed to track down, vet, and present the corroborating witnesses.

Any of those scenarios is plausible, and some don't reflect very badly on Newt -- much less prove that he did indeed demand an "open marriage."

Something or someone else may turn up tomorrow and fill in the gaps. That wouldn't surprise me. But let's at least be clear when we're speculating, rather than arguing from objective, no-longer-disputed fact.

@ Dante: I take your point and it's a fair quibble, but it's a quibble. The fairest interpretation of his assertion was that he was offering up neutral witnesses whose word would therefore be less subject to doubt, not his daughters (whose potential bias is patent and unavoidable).

But there's no breath of a hint of a scintilla of a showing that at the time Gingrich said that which has now been shown incorrect, he knew otherwise or intended to deceive.

True. Given that it IS Newt Gingrich, "he shot his mouth off without having any idea what the eff he was talking about" should not be ruled out until there has been a lot of careful analysis of the situation.

He didn't lie, the daughters would be in a better position to attest to what was going on in that family, and ABC rejected them.

Regarding others, I doubt he took time to call up people bought probably delegated anyway, but he did know there were people who were offered up. This whole thing is from an embarrassed reporter trying to feel better about getting so well put in his place. That, and others trying to pull down Newt.

aren't charges that Gingrich insulted Saint Ronny a bit like slyly pointing out that Romney is a *gasp* Mormon or that *shudder* Cheney has a gay daughter?

Not exactly. If Romney had claimed to be a Baptist or Cheney had said he would never tolerate homosexuality in his family, then the parallel would hold. A better example would be the old clips of Bush Sr.'s "voodoo economics" statement that got dredged up when he ran on the "Reaganomics, yay" platform in '88.

Why didn't ABC want to talk with his daughters? Isn't that the question we all ought to be asking?

Well, I wouldn't rule out "because they dislike Newt" as a possibility.

On the other hand, "my children from my first wife will vouch that my second wife, with whom I cheated on their mother, is a lying ho" ranks somewhere below "my dog ate my homework" on the scale of Testimonial Credibility.

Reagan did a brilliant, courageous job in foreign policy. Newt was dead wrong at the time to undermine Reagan. Newt was also making Reagan's job that much more difficult since the Dems were also making it extremely tough for Reagan to fight communism.

It is a public service to inform/remind GOP voters of all the bad and idiotic things that Newt has done over the years. At this rate, though, it is going to take a quite a while because the list is long.

He did the same to George W. Bush when Bush was making the toughest and most controversial decision of his presidency — the surge in Iraq. Bush was opposed by many of the top generals, by some Republican leaders who feared the surge would hurt in the 2008 elections, and of course by a slew of Democrats and media commentators. Here again Gingrich provided no support for his party’s embattled president, testifying as a private citizen in 2007 that the strategy was “inadequate,” contained “breathtaking” gaps, lacked “synergism” (whatever that means), and was “very disappointing.”

This was the biggest shocker to me. Newt opposed the Iraq surge! Christ - was there one major issue in the last five years he's been on the right side of?

@ Paul: You wrote, "Newt is far to the right of Mitt as we all well know." Actually, I don't know that at all. It very much depends what particular issues you're comparing them on, whether you're talking only about their current positions or whether you instead are still holding them responsible for past positions (and that depends in part on whether they've repudiated or defended said positions). It depends a lot on how you rate their sincerity and commitment to what they say their positions are now.

Tonight, for example, Gingrich was dramatically to Romney's LEFT on immigration policy, all but endorsing amnesty. Gingrich was the only candidate on the stage embracing new spending programs -- for a moon base, of all things.

No, sir, I think you presume and assume too much, and I'm not sure you even get the biggest picture correct. Newt's only to Mitt's right if you ignore about half of what Newt's said and done, and if you think Romney's current positions are insincere or temporary.

Honestly, it's childish to blame any 'establishment' for ruining Newt. Everyone has interests and everyone pursues them. He will either out-shine the opposition on his own merits or not. If he can't fight his way through the fog of his own past on the debate floor or in print, then the heck with him. Give me someone who can, 'Willard' or otherwise.

People say Newt has great ideas and is a 'real' conservative compared to the opposition. They say he will take the fight to the opposition in ways the other candidates can't or won't.